As countries meet today for an informal discussion on game changing #TRIPS waiver proposal, it will be interesting to see if wealthier nations will answer the questions raised by the sponsors of this proposal. Some really pertinent questions.

Mozambique: After years of discouraging WTO Members especially developing countries to improve their patent law so that compulsory licenses (CL) may be issued in interest of public health, how does @EU_UNGeneva expect all members to be ready to use CL should the need arise?

South Africa: If voluntary licensing (VL) mechanisms work, why do various license agreements concluded by companies exclude half of the world's population from supply and only license to a few very specific manufacturers. Why is it that no one knows the full terms of the license?

India: Do the opponents have any data regarding how the waiver would demonstrably have negative impact on Members' economies, if any?

India: Public funding has been driving COVID-R&D. In addition, billions of dollars are spent on purchasing the vaccine. Given the demand volumes, pharma companies will anyway make profits. So why is there a need for IP as an incentive, in a global pandemic situation?

Pakistan: How would countries arguing for voluntary licensing, ensure the availability of non-exclusive, global, open licenses on reasonable terms and conditions, where all manufacturers globally may be engaged; and all countries may benefit from supply without any restrictions?

For full list of Qs, read this document: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/IP/C/W674.pdf&Open=True

India, South Africa and other co-sponsers of this waiver are being repeatedly asked same questions in a bid to stall the process. Meanwhile, wealthier nations (many of them taking their cues from pharmaceutical corporations) haven't yet answered the questions raised above?

You can read responses given by proponents of this waiver here : https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/IP/C/W673.pdf&Open=True